Saturday, January 14, 2017

As President Trump’s nominees for government positions go
through their Senate hearings, several of them have been asked about their
views on climate change. The nominees have generally deflected questions on the
issue by claiming there is a question as to how much effect manmade emissions
are having on the climate. None of the nominees addressed the fact that
essentially all climate scientists publishing research today have stated
manmade emissions are responsible for the climate change observed in recent
decades.

Marc Morano, publisher of the skeptical news site Climate
Depot and a known climate change denier, defended the nominees statements and
was quoted saying, “This is a semantic game that Trump’s Cabinet officials are
playing,” Morano said. “Obviously, if you say you believe in climate change, it’s
a meaningless statement. The media is so easy to fall for misdirections on this
issue, and the Trump nominees have mastered that this week. You sort of just
laugh at how gullible the media is.”[1]

Using statements that ‘feel’ true, but aren’t, is a popular
strategy when one isn’t supported by the facts. As Mr. Morano pointed out, it is
surprising to see how easily the news media allows itself to be duped into
being the unwitting partner in this effort, frequently unwittingly publishing
unsubstantiated claims as being valid and lending its own credibility to the
source in the process.

A case in point is Tom Harris, executive director of the
misnamed International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). Harris is but one
example of a group of individuals and organizations engaged in a tobacco
industry-style campaign concerning climate change. As the executive director of
ICSC, Mr. Harris is paid to place editorials and letters in news outlets to
support the cause of the fossil fuel industry, using questionable logic,
science and claims.

At the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change hosted by the
Heartland Institute, Tom Harris gave a speech in which he discussed what he
called "information sharing" and "coordinated local
activism."[2] At one
point, he directs the crowd to engage in a "well coordinated
response" and contact newspapers after they publish one of his articles,
to provide reviews about how much they enjoy articles by Tom Harris. In this
way, Harris is able to get news outlets all over the country to publish his
articles, despite the fact he is not consistent or scientifically credible.

“It’s pretty surprising to see how easily the media allows
itself to get duped into this,” says Dr. Christopher Keating, a physicist who
does research in geophysics and has published two books on climate change. “His
articles have no scientific credibility and he isn’t even consistent in his
claims.”

Harris has stated Canada
should follow the advice of Philippine President Duterte and opt out of the Paris agreement on climate
change.[3]
For the record, Duerte has been implicated in the deaths of thousands, has
compared himself to Hitler[4],
stated he regrets he did not participate in the rape and murder of a lay
minister[5]
and said he once threw a man out of a helicopter.[6]

“This is not the example I would’ve used,” opines Keating.
“He has even had his articles reprinted in North
Korea[7]
and Uzbekistan.[8]
Meaning, he has been endorsed by two of the most despotic regimes in the world
and thinks we should take advice from Duterte. But, the news media keeps publishing
his submissions.”

Keating refers to a letter Harris had published in InsideHaltom.com as an
example of Harris’ lack of consistency. “In this particular article, he states ’global
warming … has been a good thing,’ But, in the same article, he states, ‘there
is no convincing evidence that human activity is causing climate problems.’
Then, he says, ‘relatively little money is available to help the poor adapt to
climate change today.’ [9]

“So, in one article, he tells us there is no global warming, that there is
global warming and it’s a good thing, and that there is global warming but it’s
a bad thing and people are suffering from it. Which one is it? He also promotes
the NIPCC by repeating their claim climate change isn’t real while, at the same
time, stating they are wrong because it is real. And, amazingly enough, the
media allows itself to be used this way.”

The NIPCC, or Nongovernmental International Committee on
Climate Change, is a fake science organization funded by the Heartland
Institute in an effort to undermine the United Nations’ IPCC.

“The NIPCC has been completely debunked[10]
and shown to be a pseudoscience organization,” continued Keating. “Harris often
says they have thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers to support their
claims, but he can never produce any valid science. That’s because they don’t
have any. Citing them as a source is like citing an astrologer. If you say
climate change isn’t real because NIPCC says so, you might as well say it isn’t
real because your daily horoscope in the newspaper says so. Both would be
equally valid.”

NIPCC was founded and funded by Heartland
Institute[11], which
calls itself “the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about
man-made climate change”. As such, NIPCC is funded, directly and indirectly, by
fossil fuel interests and its goal is to undermine credible science. It even
picked its name so that it can be confused with the UN’s IPCC and designed it’s
publications to look the same as the UN reports. According to Keating, “This is
a deliberate effort on their part to confuse the public. And yet, the media
refers to them as if they are a credible source.”

“NASA, NOAA, the American Geophysical Union, the American
Physical Society, and all the official scientific bodies of the nations on
Earth agree that human activities are driving global warming.Climate research from across the world is
summarized every several years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
the IPCC.But Harris asks the news media
to ignore the world’s climate scientists and the IPCC’s summary in favor of the
NIPCC. And, news services all over the country willingly go along,” points out
Keating.

Another example Keating cites is how the media repeats
Harris when he states climate change is “a topic of intense debate in the
science community.” [12]
“This is a false statement and he completely ignores the fact that over 99% of recently
published climate scientists[13]
and 97% of all surveyed climate scientists[14] are
in agreement that manmade emissions are causing climate change. There is no
debate among credible scientists on this issue. The science is massively
overwhelming and conclusive – manmade emissions are changing the climate.”

Harris frequently claims scientists and environmentalists “expect
us to believe humanity controls our planet’s climate as if we had a global
thermostat,”[15] and states,
that “proof is lacking that humans control the climate.”[16]

“No one is saying we control the climate,” says Keating. “The
science shows we are changing the climate, not controlling it. So, why is he
making such a deceptive statement?”

Harris is also known to change his position from statement to statement. In
one recent exchange, Harris stated, “you know from past discussions that we do
not deny anthropogenic climate change.”[17]
This response is interesting because a simple review of his published articles
quickly shows he has stated manmade climate change is not real on a consistent
basis. In one particular article, published in the Canada Free Press, Harris
stated, “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is
not occurring, for accelerated sea level rise that is not occurring, for net
glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring, for ocean acidification that is
not occurring, and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”[18]

Another frequent statement Harris makes is “The climate is always
changing.” Keating responded, “This is the current ‘I hate science’ statement,
similar to the claim “I’m not a scientist, but…” When people say this, they are
implying they think all of the climate scientists in the world are unaware of
that fact. We have climate scientists because the climate is always changing.
The question is, ‘why is the climate changing today?’ Either Harris is unable
to realize this, or he’s counting on his readers to be unable to figure it out
for themselves. Really, there is no alternative. And, it is very deceitful
because the climate has never changed this fast. It is easy to come to the
conclusion that Harris leaves those facts out because it doesn’t help his
agenda.”

Keating addressed Harris’ claims that we shouldn’t do
anything about CO2 emissions because it is not a pollutant.[19]
“Harris says CO2 is not a pollutant because it occurs naturally and
is good for plants. The same can be said about raw sewage. It is produced
naturally and has been used as fertilizer for thousands of years. But, no one
wants it in their yard. You would have a hard time convincing people that
sewage in their drinking water wasn’t pollution. What Harris is failing to
mention is we are not discussing naturally produced CO2, we
discussing CO2 produced by automobiles and power plants. Those emissions
are not natural and are pollutants. And, Mr. Harris is misleading with his
statements because he leaves out a lot of important information. For instance,
CO2 would also be good for plants we don’t want, such as weeds in
farm fields.”

His attempts to refer to science are equally bad. In one
instance, he wrote an article, published in the Washington Post, claiming there
was no scientific validity to an average surface temperature.[20]
When this article was reviewed by seven climate scientists, their conclusion
was that Harris’ overall scientific credibility was “very low.”[21]

“Why would the news media lend credence to someone who is
rated as having ‘very low’ scientific credibility? This is one of those things
the news media really needs to rethink,” says Keating.

Harris’ has lately been undermining efforts to address
climate change by claiming we should instead by using that money to help people
suffering from climate change. In an article published in the Des Moines
Register, Harris stated, “Across the world people are suffering due to the
effects of dangerous climate change. Yet aid agencies are unable to secure
sufficient funds to help them because, of the more than $1 billion spent
globally every day on climate finance, only 6 percent of it is goes to
helping vulnerable people adapt to climate change today. The rest is spent
trying to stop climate phenomena that might, or might not, happen in the
distant future. This is immoral, effectively valuing the lives of people yet to
be born more than those in need today.”[22]

“This is really an amazing statement on his part,” says
Keating. “The reason people are suffering today is because Harris, and people
like him, worked hard to prevent any actions from being taken back when we had
a chance. Now, he’s essentially saying we shouldn’t do anything about climate
change today because we didn’t do anything in the past. And, he doesn’t say
anything about those people who will suffer in the future because we didn’t
address climate change today.”

“After reading his statements, it seems to me that he is
only interested in protecting wealthy people who are making fortunes from the
fossil fuel industry and not workers and the world’s poor.” Keating cites Harris’
strong ties to the Heartland Institute, which has received funding from tobacco
companies and numerous fossil fuel companies to support its anti-science
campaigns, including the effort to convince people that second-hand smoke is
not dangerous. Harris was awarded Heartland’s 2014 Winner of the Excellence in
Climate Science Communications Award.[23]
Other winners are Fred W. Singer, a man strongly associated with the largest
campaign of deceit in American history, one which the tobacco industry admitted
to and paid hundreds of billions of dollars in penalties for. In the past,
Harris was the Director of Operations for the High Park Advocacy Group, a
fossil fuel industry lobby firm. He was also a senior associate with APCO
Worldwide, a PR firm that worked with tobacco giant Phillip Morris to develop a
response to findings concerning the hazards of second-hand smoke.[24]

“We see this coordinated campaign to undermine science to
the advantage of certain industry groups,” concludes Keating. “Harris is only
one example of the people engaged in these efforts. They are certainly free to
say these things, but I think the news media should also inform people of the
nature of their campaign. People have the right to know.”

I am hoping that cnsnews is willing to post another very
long comment of mine on this forum. I have finally realized that I will never
convince deniers of human-caused global or change their minds, so this is the last
time I will try to add some legitimate proof of the fact that human industries
are the primary cause of climate change. I came to this realization when one of
those who replied to my comments, suggested that scientific consensus was
merely a political organization designed to spread what he calls a “myth” But
actually most of the political power trips in this endless and needless debate,
are perpetrated by Republicans who started making attempt to smear climate
science and climate scientists by falsely politicizing their many decades of
research decades ago. And in the white house today we see the start of a
cabinet composed of deniers and wealthy plutocrats who oppose the reality of
global warming without having very much understandings of the actual science
behind it. Trump is appointing Rex Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil who has
fought long and hard to oppose reducing its Co2 emissions to acceptable
levels—probably in order to delay or prevent his company from losing any of its
multi-billion dollar profits. And fossil fuel producing and using corporations
who decide to cloak their efforts in secrecy to oppose scientific arguments by
portraying thousands of climate scientists around the world as being part of
some absurd plot to take control the future energy production of the
world, and of being only interested in the power and wealth they could
gain by pushing this supposed conspiracy—pretty strange claims considering that
now, a multimillionaire is going to be head of the EPA with the goal of abolishing
it. Then there was the recent attempt launched by Republicans to get rid of the
Compressional ethics committee—no sign of graft and corruption here right? To
Trump’s credit, he scolded them for jumping the gun and not waiting a little
longer—meaning that he still may have plans to scrub the Ethics committee.

So if the question is who is really interested in making
money and securing power, the answer is as clear as the nose on your faces, and
I am not going to stick around in a fruitless attempt to change anyone’s made
up minds. So please post this comment cnsnews and you’ll never have to post my
comments on this forum again!

I could go on and
on, and of course peppered all over google in between these articles Are sites
with political bias using all sorts of bogus ideas and false research. Most of
it is typically found on sites run by those with conservative political agenda’s
or on the website of government think tanks who fund many kinds of efforts to
dispense distorted science and political biases. They often have what sound
like forward thinking names, like, Center for a Constructive Tomorrow,
Americans for Prosperity, American’s for Tax Reform, Education Acton Research
Foundation, and The Heartland Institute. And if you browse through a list of
the websites which dispense and fund all this massive denial you cans see many
more. A Good website
is to find that list is:

Atmospheric CO2 levels
(Green is Law Dome ice core,
Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and
Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC).
While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per
million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in
rigatonis. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement
production and emissions from gas flaring.

The Smoking Gun

The final piece of
evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the
increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific
wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different
wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a
technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:

Summing Up

Like a detective
story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more
energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

Then you need a
method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you
need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in
the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

Next, you need a
‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by
nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

And finally, the
smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped
in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy
captured by CO2.

The last point is
what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by
science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that
man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.

Basic rebuttal
written by GPWayne

Addendum: the
opening paragraph was added on 24th October 2013 in response to a criticism by
Graeme, a participant on the Coursera Climate Literacy
course. He pointed out that the rebuttal did not make explicit that
it was man-made CO2 causing the warming, which the new paragraph
makes clear. The statement "...and humans are adding more CO2all the
time" was also added to the 'what the science says section.

Update July 2015:

Summing Up

Like a detective
story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more
energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

Then you need a
method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you
need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that
mechanism.

Next, you need a
‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by
nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

And finally, the
smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped
in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of
energy captured by CO2.

The last point is what
places CO2 at the scene of
the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that
proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.

Basic rebuttal written
by GPWayne

Addendum: the opening
paragraph was added on 24th October 2013 in response to a criticism by Graeme,
a participant on the Coursera Climate Literacy course. He pointed out that
the rebuttal did not make explicit that it was man-made CO2 causing the
warming, which the new paragraph makes clear. The statement "...and humans
are adding more CO2all the time" was also added to the 'what the science says
section.

The U.S. Global Change Research Program reported
in June 2009[24] that:

Observations show
that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over
the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping
gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil,
and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests,
agricultural practices, and other activities.

The report, which is
about the effects that climate change is having in the United States,
also says:

Climate-related
changes have already been observed globally and in the United States.
These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days,
increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and
reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period
on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been
observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than
in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and
northern Great Plains increasing more than
7 °F (3.9 °C). Some of the changes have been faster than previous
assessments had suggested.

Arctic Climate
Impact Assessment[edit]

In 2004, the
intergovernmental Arctic Council and
the non-governmental International Arctic
Science Committee released the synthesis report of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment:[25]

Climate conditions in
the past provide evidence that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are
associated with rising global temperatures. Human activities, primarily the
burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), and secondarily the
clearing of land, have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane,
and other heat-trapping ("greenhouse") gases in the
atmosphere...There is international scientific consensus that most of the
warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[26]

And from the same
Wikipedia article:

Academies of
science (general science) [edit]

Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional
academies, and both the international InterAcademy
Council and International
Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have
made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging
nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science
academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements
and one individual declaration by the Polish
Academy of Sciences in 2007.

Joint national
science academy statements[edit]

2001
Following the publication of the IPCC
Third Assessment Report, seventeen national science academies
issued a joint statement, entitled "The Science of Climate
Change", explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing
the scientific consensus on climate change science. The statement, printed
in an editorial in the journal Science on
May 18, 2001,[31] was
signed by the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the
Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy,
Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.[32]

2005 The
national science academies of the G8 nations,
plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest
emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement
on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the
scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to
justify nations taking prompt action, and explicitly endorsed the IPCC
consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil,
Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United
Kingdom, and the United States.[33]

2007 In
preparation for the 33rd G8 summit,
the national science academies of the G8+5 nations
issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science
academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous
conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the
declaration states, "It is unequivocal that the climate is changing,
and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing
human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the
environmental conditions on Earth unless
counter-measures are taken." The thirteen signatories were the
national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany,
Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and
the United States.[34]

2007 In
preparation for the 33rd G8 summit,
the Network of African Science Academies submitted
a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate
change” :

A consensus, based on
current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human
activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil
fuels is largely responsible for driving this change. The IPCC should be
congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the
nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.

— The thirteen
signatories were the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe,
as well as the African Academy of Sciences[35]

If that’s not enough:

In this article take
note of the chart with the sudden extreme upward cure at the end.

Short answer: Yes.
Even a seemingly slight average temperature rise is enough to cause a dramatic
transformation of our planet.

March 15, 2016 Melissa Denchak

Eight degrees
Fahrenheit. It may not sound like much—perhaps the difference between wearing a
sweater and not wearing one on an early-spring day. But for the world in which we
live, which climate experts project will be at least eight degrees warmer by 2100 should global
emissions continue on their current path, this small rise will have grave
consequences, ones that are already becoming apparent, for every ecosystem and
living thing—including us.

According to the
National Climate Assessment, human influences are the number one cause of
global warming, especially the carbon pollution we cause by burning fossil
fuels and the pollution-capturing we prevent by destroying forests. The carbon
dioxide, methane, soot, and other pollutants we release into the atmosphere act
like a blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm.
Evidence shows that 2000 to 2009 was hotter than any other decade in at least
the past 1,300 years. This warming
is altering the earth's climate system, including its land, atmosphere, oceans,
and ice, in far-reaching ways.

More frequent and
severe weather

Higher temperatures
are worsening many types of disasters, including storms, heat waves, floods,
and droughts. A warmer climate creates an atmosphere that can collect, retain,
and drop more water, changing weather patterns in such a way that wet areas
become wetter and dry areas drier. "Extreme weather events are costing
more and more," says Aliya Haq,
deputy director of NRDC's Clean Power Plan initiative. "The number of
billion-dollar weather disasters is expected to rise.”

Are the Effects of
Global Warming Really that Bad?

Short answer: Yes.
Even a seemingly slight average temperature rise is enough to cause a dramatic
transformation of our planet.

March 15, 2016Melissa Denchak

Eight degrees Fahrenheit. It may not sound like much—perhaps the
difference between wearing a sweater and not wearing one on an early-spring
day. But for the world in which we live, which climate experts project will be
at least eight degrees warmer by 2100 should global emissions
continue on their current path, this small rise will have grave consequences,
ones that are already becoming apparent, for every ecosystem and living
thing—including us.

According to the National Climate Assessment, human influences
are the number one cause of global warming, especially the carbon pollution we
cause by burning fossil fuels and the pollution-capturing we prevent by
destroying forests. The carbon dioxide, methane, soot, and other pollutants we
release into the atmosphere act like a blanket, trapping the sun's heat and
causing the planet to warm. Evidence shows that 2000 to 2009 was hotter than
any other decade in at least the past 1,300 years. This warming is
altering the earth's climate system, including its land, atmosphere, oceans,
and ice, in far-reaching ways.

More
frequent and severe weather

Higher temperatures are worsening many types of disasters,
including storms, heat waves, floods, and droughts. A warmer climate creates an
atmosphere that can collect, retain, and drop more water, changing weather
patterns in such a way that wet areas become wetter and dry areas drier.
"Extreme weather events are costing more and more," says Aliya Haq, deputy director
of NRDC's Clean Power Plan initiative. "The number of billion-dollar
weather disasters is expected to rise.”

I could go on and on, and of course peppered all over google in
between these articles Are sites with political bias using all sorts of bogus
ideas and false research. Most of it is typically found on sites run by those
with conservative political agenda’s or on the website of government think
tanks who fund may kinds of efforts to dispense distorted science and political
biases. They often have lofty names like, Scientist for truth, the real story,
or The Call for Scientific Freedom example however these are example typical of
those sites, and of my own general observations, (and I am not saying these sites
exist.) I have just spent a lot of time writing this long comment, and so I
don’t want to add a long list of deniers sites, but if you browse through the
websites which dispense all this massive denial, you’ll get the idea.